On Prayer (Col. 4:12)

I woke up this morning quite excited to get to my Greek class.  The reason was because I knew that today we would be going over a portion of scripture that included Colossians 4:12, one of my favorite verses in all the New Testament.  I left class somewhat disheartened and "shot down" so to speak.  When we came to this verse, I shared my thoughts and feelings on the use of a particular Greek word and the implications of its use.  My professor softly rebuked me for my thoughts and instructed me, "I wouldn't read into it too much.  It's a simple use of the verb.  In all the other instances in the New Testament I can think of, it's used just to convey simple work."  He then moved on to the next verse and left me somewhat embarrassed and ashamed.  But my curiosity drove me to do some research (instead of studying for my exam I have in a couple hours), and what I found encouraged and uplifted me.  Respectfully, I must disagree with my prof. and I'll tell you why!

Verse 12 of chapter 4 says in the NIV, "Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends his greetings.  He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured."  The word that I want to focus on is this word "wrestling."  The Greek word here is agonizomai.  It's where we get our word "agonize" or "agony."  Translation options, as given in the BDAG, are "to engage in a contest, to fight, to struggle, to strive."  The noun from which it comes, agonos/agone, can be translated as "a contest, a struggle against opposition, a fight."

In class, I vocalized my fascination at the word Paul chooses.  I explained how I love this picture of Epaphras agonizing and wrestling in prayer against some force.  No one fights or struggles and comes out of it without having lost something.  We fight and struggle and come out exhausted.  It is taxing and laborious.  And I said that I want to come to a point in my prayer life where I can, out of love for others, labor and agonize in prayer on another's behalf.  This is where my professor cut me off and told me not to read into it and that in his encounters in the NT with this word, it simply means "work" or "labor."  Out of curiosity, I looked up every other instance in the New Testament where the word is used, and I have to say I can't find a single use where it is a mundane word about working.  It is always used in a very intensive way about a real struggle or battle.  I'll share my findings and let you decide for yourselves.  There is a word in the Greek for common work, and it's not agonizomai.

The first time this word is used in the New Testament is in Luke 13:24.  Jesus is talking about the difficulty of entering the kingdom of God.  He says, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to."  I doubt Christ would be referencing simple labor or work while explaining the difficulty of entering the kingdom.  The parable is centered around the concept of the "narrow door."  He's telling us to fight, to struggle, to get through the narrow door and enter into the kingdom.  

The second use of the word is in John 18:36.  Jesus is standing before Pilate, and he says, "My kingdom is not of this world.  If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.  But now my kingdom is from another place."  Jesus isn't saying that his servants and angels would petition to Pilate and ask that they set him free.  He's saying that they would do battle against opposition on his behalf.  They would draw their swords and rush into possible death to defend and deliver him.  

The third use of this word is in 1 Corinthians 9:25.  Paul loves to use analogies and metaphors of athletic competitions in his letters.  Here he writes, "Everyone who competes in the games goes through strict training.  They do it to get a crown... we do it to get a crown that will last forever."  Paul, again, is emphasizing how we have to go through rigorous training and strive in competition against opposition in order to get the crown.  

Next, the word is used in Colossians 1:29.  Paul writes, "To this end I strenuously contend with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me."  This verse speaks for itself in defense of my position.  "... with all the energy Christ so powerfully works in me."  This whole verse repeats intense words.  

Lastly, there are two verses in Paul's letter to Timothy in which he uses this word.  The one I want to highlight is 1 Timothy 6:12.  This is also one of my favorite verses.  "Fight the good fight of faith... I charge you to keep this command without spot of blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ..."  The word for "good" used here is the word in the Greek for goodness that is associated with beauty.  There is agathos, which is used in sentences like, "Cafeteria food can be good sometimes."  But Paul uses kalos, which can even be translated as "beautiful."  So we could translate this phrase as, "Struggle the beautiful struggle of faith."  We are told to agonize against all opposition to carry out our faith without spot or blame.  We will fall, we will lose our energy, we will sweat and toil and be bruised.  But we will press on renewed by the power of the Lord our God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to endure until the end when Jesus Christ comes again.  This is the climax of the letter.  This is intense.  This is NOT mundane work or labor.

So I return to my initial conclusion.  We ought to toil and labor and agonize and wrestle through prayer on behalf of those we truly love.  And we ought to do so "in order that [they] might stand in completion fully assured in all the will of God."  This verse implies that we can actually, through prayer, have a positive effect on the spiritual status of those we love.  But it is not easy.  But "the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  

Optimism and the Law of Love

This isn't a long and studious sounding post about people most folks have never heard of or concepts most people don't care about.  I was just thinking today about how cynics seem to live lives that are love deprived.  How do you turn a cynic?  Well I think the best way would be to demonstrate and enact the Law of Love.  If all we do in life is dish out love like there's no tomorrow and show more concern for those around us than we have for ourselves, we might find love to be contagious.  Why should I be concerned for myself?  Billions around the globe have severely desperate circumstances, yet still find the means to enjoy good moments in life.  I've seen this first-hand from AIDS orphans who have no living parents, no motivation, and no hope for a long life.  But those children were rarely seen without a smile.

I mentioned in a previous post that I feel as though cynicism and pessimism may be responsible for the destruction of as many souls as sin itself.  Worry and concern for self can, at length, cause great stress and sadness and paranoia.  If we truly live as though we trust the Lord, these concerns aren't necessarily eradicated, but rather suppressed and comforted by the knowledge that the Lord simply loves.  The Trinity is held together by selflessness.  Each member of the Godhead gives themselves fully to the others.  If we live like God lives, we would find joy and fulfillment in giving ourselves to others and loving them above ourselves trusting that the Lord will sustain us.  We were created to love others.  Adam was in perfect relationship with God in the garden, but God saw that Adam wasn't fulfilled.  So he fashioned a partner for him, a woman.  It is then that God recognizes this as "good."

Those who live by this Law of Love just seem to be more optimistic naturally.  They trust.  Worrying in excess is poisonous.  The scriptures are clear on the subject.  We need not worry.  No good comes from it.  Trusting the Lord while actively pursuing and seeking His perfect will in our lives and living as though we were making decisions based on the character that He has instilled in us is what was intended.  Sure, it is a battle, but it is good.  "Fight the good fight of faith."  Paul does not tell Timothy to "Enjoy the fun cake-walk of faith."  No doubt, this life isn't meant to be easy.  But the battle is good.  In the Greek, the word used here for "good" is "kalos" which is the kind of good that is associated with beauty.  In fact, the word is more often translated as "beautiful."  If we walk in love and fight through this life serving the Lord, how can we help but be joyous?  There are times for sadness and mourning, sure.  I don't deny that.  But living according to the law of worry is to live in distrust.  Let us be optimistic, looking for the good in every situation.

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. 6 Implications for Ministry

“Euangelios” is Greek for “the gospel” and is found in our word “evangelize.” This is appropriate for this section because all of the things I believe regarding theology will inform the way that I carry out my ministry in life.  First, I should say that I do not see myself as the senior pastor of a church.  Instead, I have a real passion for spiritual growth after conversion.  As a result of this, I feel the Lord is pulling me in the direction of small group leadership.  I think the Lord is beginning a movement in the Church that will focus on deeper relationships with the Lord.  People are desiring more in their Christian walks and lives than that which white middle-class America at large is currently offering.  People want more, and God is ready and willing to give them exactly that.  The real problem is that the people of the Church are rarely exposed to anything beyond justification and the beginnings of regeneration.  This is truly sad.

As a result, I believe the Lord is ready to bring back the small group settings that used to be so prevalent in the Church.  This was especially prevalent in the early Methodist churches because of Wesley’s emphasis on personal growth in small group settings.  I see myself being a part of a similar system where sometime during the week, people will come together at the church of in other designated areas where they will meet with a small group.  In these small groups, there would be a facilitator who would help teach more about grace and progressive sanctification.  People simply aren’t aware of what God can do past forgiveness of sins, and that needs to change before the other “symptoms” that people complain about in the Church can be remedied.  Honestly, I think the lack of knowledge is responsible for many of the problems in the Church today.  This is why I see myself being involved on that level.  I want to help people be made aware of all the things that God can do in the lives of believers.  The Church needs to be armed with knowledge.  From knowledge springs action.  From action come results.  From results (spiritual growth) more lives are impacted, and the least and the last and the lost can find themselves affected by the immense power of Christlike love and sacrifice that infiltrates the core of the secular world to renew passion in the Church for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom of God.  This is what changes the world one soul at a time.

Because of this profound lack of knowledge, I feel a calling to work within the Wesleyan denomination and to being active in reviving a Wesleyan tradition.  John Wesley took these small groups very seriously.  He had strict rules to the point that if they were not followed, one might find themselves removed from the group for their lack of discipline and commitment.  He had different classes for different stages in spiritual growth.  There were classes for the newborn believers in order to help them reach a point in their lives where willful sin no longer has a hold on them.  There were more advanced classes, also, for those who were looking for a deeper relationship with the Lord past that point and were on their way to sanctification.  These divisions, I believe, are necessary.  In this day and age, everyone is concerned with equality.  They want everyone to be accepted into any group across the boards.  Where there are divisions, there are tensions, and there are jealous or upset people.  This simply needs to change.  It is not shameful to know oneself in their spiritual maturity.  It takes discipline and humility to know where oneself is in that journey.  It shows maturity when one can step back and analyze where they are in their walk with God and place themselves accordingly among the right people and in the right environments to bring positive change.  We cannot be too concerned with making everyone simply “feel good” when the quality of spiritual growth and the level of cooperation with grace is at stake.

Because of this, I believe it is necessary to have someone in every church who is responsible for these group meetings.  They would facilitate the meetings, and they would be honest with the church members giving real feedback and advice as to where they belong in regards to their spiritual state.  I hope to find myself actively involved in young adult ministries in the near future as I refine my own beliefs and disciplines so that eventually I can serve the Lord wherever He wants me to be.  I hope to grow in knowledge and in grace so that my testimony and the words I speak would impact hearts and lives for the good of the Lord and His kingdom.

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. 5 Doctrine of Sanctification

“Charis” is the Greek word meaning grace.  We find it in words like “charismatic” and “eucharist.” I think it’s important to start off this section with the word “grace.”  Essentially, this is because I don’t believe that anything in the area of sanctification can take place apart from grace.  Sanctification is entirely the result of cooperation with grace.  It is certainly a process that begins as progressive sanctification and ending with entire sanctification.

I am a firm believer in what is commonly referred to as the middle-way to entire sanctification.  This is to say that I believe that entire sanctification comes by a process of growth in grace and constant seeking on the part of the believer.  I don’t necessarily believe that only people over the age of 60 can be entirely sanctified, but I mean that this is not a process that takes place instantaneously or at a time of the choosing of the believer.  The Shorter Way just seems to lack so much, in my opinion.  I would like to think that my God can accomplish so much more and desires to accomplish so much more in the lives of Christians.  He can literally break the power of sin in our lives and re-orient us in love.  Love can be the normal and sin the exception in our lives.  People who have grown and matured in their relationship with Christ can be so much like him that they can live their lives daily in such a way that love in conveyed when they are not even aware of it.  They live that way because they are naturally loving.  These people don’t become that way because they simply decided, “Today is the day that I will be sanctified.”  They became sanctified entirely because they day-by-day walked with God cooperating with His grace with every step for years.  These are spiritual giants.  And they are even likely to not testify to being sanctified openly.  If they do, it is most likely in a small group setting or in private with one other person.

I am cautious to say that I outright agree with the articles of religion in the Wesleyan denomination.  The way that the Wesleyan denomination views entire sanctification describes it as a crisis moment in which a person is suddenly changed.  The walls of sin are broken down in a moment, and the individual is free from the power and stronghold of sin.  The denomination, though, does not denounce a progressive sanctification.  I believe that there is a moment that we can testify to where the Lord makes us sanctified, but I do believe that it is after a process of growth.  I believe that we will struggle through the process praying for the Lord to sanctify us and change our hearts, and He will do so eventually.  I believe in a momentary transformation, but, as I said, I believe it takes place after a journey.  Essentially, I do believe in a moment, but maybe not a crisis moment.  I can't deny that this can take place in one's life, and there are people who testify to that crisis moment.  I just do not believe it accurately describes the most common transformation.

A few examples of testimonies that differ would be those of Reverend David Vardaman, Professor Elaine Bernius, and Dr. Bud Bence.  Rev. Vardaman, according to my own observations, is a spiritual giant.  He displays self-control and a life of love on a daily basis.  He models sanctification to me.  He walks it and talks it.  He has never shared his testimony with me, but I hope to ask him about it in the near future.  Elaine Bernius does testify to sanctification and has told me personally what her experience was like.  For her, it was a crisis moment where the Lord suddenly sanctified her through and through while she was still in college.  In my optimism, I believe her account to be true, but doubt that it is the standard.  I do not see myself being ready for sanctification any time in the immediate future, and I am almost finished with college.  I certainly wish, though, that I could be sanctified tomorrow if I could.  Dr. Bence sat down with me once and explained his view.  It was much different.  He does not testify to entire sanctification.  He says that he has been searching for most of his life now and has not yet reached it.  He firmly believes in a longer way to sanctification.  I would most likely argue on behalf of the middle-way.  

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. 4 Doctrine of Salvation

Soteriology is the study of salvation, and is rooted in the Greek word “sowdzo.” I strongly hold to the Semi-Augustinian view of salvation and do so unwaveringly.  I firmly believe that I have complete original sin.  Salvation can only come as a result of cooperation with the grace that the Lord makes available to me.  He takes the initiative, and I respond.  There is simply no other way.  This isn’t to say that God does all the work, though.  This is not election.  God does not choose who makes the cut and who doesn’t.  This is not divine monergism.  But at the same time, I don’t believe in a partial original sin.  I absolutely do not believe that humans have the capacity in and of themselves to realize their sinfulness and come to the Lord on their own terms and expect Him to impart saving grace when we come to Him by our own power.  No one comes to the Lord, the most Holy being in the universe, without first having an invitation.  No one shows up on the doorstep of the Whitehouse and expects the President to see them.  Make no mistake, this is the Almighty Lord God Creator of all things.  We only come to Him as a result of the prevenient grace He freely gives purely out of love.

An “ordo salutis” is a clear pathway to salvation.  It is the order in which salvation takes place.  This can be different from a “via salutis” which is the way that salvation actually plays out in one’s life.  Each person has their own view of the way that salvation should play out.  My own ordo salutis begins with an awakening experience.  By the grace of God, we are made aware of our sinfulness.  This is where we cooperate with the prevenient grace God gives.  Through that grace, God reveals to us our depravity.  Secondly, we must respond with sincere repentance.  It is possible to experience awakening and not feel penitent.  But when we repent of our sins, the Lord ushers us into the intermediate state along the pathway of salvation.

The third, fourth, and fifth steps in the pathway of salvation take place at the same time.  These three are full faith in God, justification, and adoption.  Full faith in God, then, is step number three in the pathway.  It is believing in the Lord completely.  Justification in the fourth step and is granted to us through faith and repentance.  God cleanses us of our unrighteousness and forgives our sins.  We are then adopted as the fifth step.  This means that we are called sons and daughters of God.  Many people end here in their theology.  All they want from God is what they get at this point: a ticket to heaven.  This makes little sense to me.  In order to be ushered into the presence of God, believers need to do much more than simply believe and repent.  Stopping there implies that we have little desire to truly pursue the Lord or even show Him the respect He deserves by seeking a relationship with Him for saving our souls.  Doesn’t he deserve at least that?  I feel as though white middle-class Christianity is content with justification and adoption and still living a life oriented toward sin.  If this isn’t the most extreme example of ungratefulness and selfishness, I don’t know what is.  It’s like taking an engagement ring that your love worked hard for and sacrificed that which was most precious to them in order to purchase it, and you take it and abuse that love.  You cheat on your love knowing they love you so much that they would simply forgive you.  You show off the ring for all the beauty it possesses, but you never pour any of your own life into your love.  It’s simply tragic.  But God does not want to stop there.  He wants much more from us so that He can do a greater work in us and for us and through us.  This happens if we take the sixth step in my ordo salutis: full surrender to the Lord.

When we surrender ourselves completely to the Lord for the sake of His will in our lives, He begins the seventh step in the process in us called regeneration.  He begins to break us of our need to sin.  Our habitual sins no longer have control of us.  We begin to learn to live a life of love.  This sets us down the road of progressive sanctification.  We begin to move towards sanctification through grace which is the eighth step.  When we are fully sanctified, we become bent towards love instead of sin.  After entire sanctification comes bodily resurrection.  When we are resurrected, we will then have final justification and, ultimately, glorification.

I believe that by the grace of God, we can be set free from the guilt of original sin, the power and stronghold of willful and habitual sin, and even sins of surprise will begin to fade as we are bent towards love in this life.  All of these things can take place in this life.  Why would we want to wait until after death?  Can’t God do even more amazing things through someone who has given themselves entirely to the Lord cooperating with grace daily to produce amazing fruits of love and self sacrifice?  This is a life I want to live.  I do not think that we can be set free from sins of infirmity in this life, though.  But the moral image which was destroyed can be restored in this life, while the political and natural images remained marred throughout our lives.

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. 3 Doctrine of Sin

Hamartiology comes from the Greek word “hamartia” meaning “sin.”  There are three prevalent metaphors used to describe sin.  These are the Legal Metaphor, the Relational/Familial Metaphor, and the Cultic/Worship Metaphor.  The Legal Metaphor describes sin as a breaking of the Law of God.  When one sins, he or she is breaking a code that God has laid down.  When we break the law, we must have justification and forgiveness.  The Relational/Familial Metaphor describes sin as a breaking of the relationship or covenant that we have with God.  This would imply that we need reconciliation and adoption to undo the sin.  The Cultic/Worship Metaphor views sin as that which makes us unclean before God.  This means we would have to be cleansed or washed with blood and sanctified.  All three views share a different perspective on sin and should be balanced.  No one of them is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  They ought to be balanced.  We can emphasize one but never at the exclusion of another.

      All wrongdoing is considered sin.  According to 1 John 5:17, anything that is harmful or hurtful to others can be considered sin.  But there are certainly different kinds and degrees of sin.  There is sin as a state.  It can be inherited corruption and inherited guilt.  We are born sinful and are responsible for that sin.  There is also sin as an act.  These can be willful sins that deliberately and purposefully done.  There are also sins of surprise where one sins out of shock.  The individual wasn’t intending to sin or thinking about sinning.  Finally, there is sin as infirmity.  These are the sins that we commit without ever knowing we are sinning.  They are unintentional.  These different kinds of sins carry different amounts of weight.

      The Bible explicitly talks about humanity having sin from birth.  This is original sin and is mentioned in Psalm 51:5, Genesis 6:5, and many other passages.  There are a few different definitions for original sin.  One is the phenomenological definition which defines sin as a bent or an orientation towards rebellion and disobedience and selfishness.  I like this perspective on sin.  This carries implications which will be visited later in my discussion of sanctification.  Essentially, I believe that we can become aligned and bent towards love instead of sin.  I believe in a very powerful God who is capable of great things in His creation if they act in correlation and cooperation with Him.  Ontologically, sin can be viewed as an actual substance or as the absence of something.  The former implies that sin is a physical substance that attaches to our souls or to our bodies.  We cannot prevent it.  It simply clings to us physically from birth.  The absence view, though, believes that sin isn’t a substance at all.  Instead, sin is the absence of the reign and the rule of the Holy Spirit in our lives.  I relate to this view and think this is an accurate way to view original sin along with the corruption view.  The corruption view considers original sin the brokenness and corruption of the image of God.  I think this view alongside the absence view accurately depicts original sin.

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. 2 Doctrine of Humanity

Anthropos is the Greek word for mankind.  We find this word embedded in the title “Anthropology,” meaning the study of mankind.  In order to end up at salvation and sanctification, it is first necessary to find our foundation for interpretation by making some conclusions regarding the nature of man.  There are three different views regarding the origin of the soul and how one acquires a soul.  There is the Creationist view which holds that God personally crafted each person’s soul and placed it in them somewhere in between conception and birth.  The Traducianist view, on the other hand, believes that the soul is inherited from the mother and the father at conception.  Another view not so widely held is the Pre-Exisistentionist view which teaches that there is a soul storehouse in heaven, and God sends a soul to a body when it is conceived.  Personally, I believe the Traducianist view is the most Biblically correct view of the three.  I believe that God’s plan was so intricate from the start that embedded in the DNA of Adam and Eve, there was a plan for the entirety of humanity.  God knew the combinations of patterns and organized randomization in such a way that His plan for the souls of all of mankind was set in motion at the very beginning.

Second, what is the image of God?  What implications does it have and what sort of influences does it have on human life?  I believe the image and likeness of God in humanity is best illustrated by a combination of two views.  One of those is the substantive view.  This view holds that the image of God is an actual physical characteristic.  It is manifested in our rational and creative capacities as humans.  The other view in this duo is called the relational view.  According to this perspective, the image of God is manifested when humans are in relation with one another in light of the trinity.  God, in His very nature, is relational, and He has passed that on to humanity in creation.  A third view, which I can understand and respect but don’t consider substantial by any means, is the functional view.  This perspective understands the image of God as something that is shown through humans exercising dominion over the created order.  This view is widely held by people who identify with the “Green” Movement.  These people tend to hold the earth in high regard, which isn’t a bad thing.  While I think proper treatment of the world we’ve inherited is important, I don’t believe it is necessarily directly related to the image of God.

I also respect and resonate with John Wesley’s view regarding the image of God.  He describes the image of God as a Trifold Image broken up into the Natural Image, the Political Image, and the Moral Image.  The Natural Image of God is reflected in humanity’s possession of personality, their affections and desires, their capacity for judgment, and the understanding of free will.  This is very similar to the substantive view.  The Political Image is manifested by humanity’s capacity to rule over the earth and their ability to have social relationships.  The Moral Image, according to Wesley, was completely destroyed in the Fall of humanity.  Adam and Even, being made in the image of God, also had an immediate and personal knowledge of God and had original righteousness.  The idea that it is lost in the Fall is consistent with Martin Luther and with John Calvin.  This is sometimes called “total depravity.”  I also believe this is true.  I used to think otherwise, believing that man is capable in and of himself to do truly good things.

I believed that apart from God, humanity could recognize their own selfishness and depravity and act apart from it.  I stopped believing this when I had an experience where I acted out of completely rage and selfishness against someone I love.  That night, I was lying in bed thinking about how I acted and thought about all the things that I had considered doing in that moment.  I realized that many of those things, had I acted on the impulse, would have ruined my life forever and the life of someone I loved dearly.  It was in that moment the Lord revealed to me my own depravity.  By grace I was able to see how utterly helpless I am apart from Him and His grace.  I now acknowledge my complete and utter dependence on the Lord every single day.  I have since looked back on that moment where God revealed the truth to me and think of how loving the Lord is.  He is still ever loving, ever giving, and ever gracious to me and to the rest of humanity.

As we look at creation, it is important to take a look at humanity in the Garden and try to understand the purpose of the Garden itself.  I believe that the Garden was a place where God and humanity could live alongside one another without humans being completely destroyed by the Lord’s holiness.  They could walk together and talk together.  Apart from Christ, the closest that God the Father ever let anyone come to seeing him directly was when He allowed Moses to see His backside.  Most current Bibles translate that Hebrew word to mean back, but this simply is not true.  The word literally means buttocks.  Moses wanted to see the Lord, and God essentially said, “Moses you would surely die if I were allow you to behold my majesty.  But if you hide in that rock, I will put my hand over the rock and walk by so that you can see my backside.”  The man who got the closest to God in the Old Testament was only worthy enough to see the backside of God in a silhouette while hiding in the cleft of a rock.  This was a result of the Fall.  In the garden, man was uncorrupted, but corruptible.  Prior to corruption, they were naturally bent towards love and goodness.  They could be in communion with God, while still growing to attain His level of holiness.  The ultimate goal of humanity is to become like God in His perfect love, willing that which God wills.  We simply did not have that in the Garden.  As a result of the Fall, we now have a higher climb ahead of us than we had in the Garden.

6 Part Entry: My Theology pt. I

Over the course of the last four years, I have had the opportunity to engage my mind with some of the most stimulating ideas about salvation that the Christian religion has to offer.  Through discussing and reading the works of some of the most influential Christians minds in history, I was able to refine my own personal theology and discover my personal views regarding the nature of humanity, the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of salvation, and the second work of grace in a Christian’s life.  All of these things influence the way that I will carry out my ministry and will inform the decisions that I make.  My thinking was largely directed by the three rules of Saint Vincent of Lerins.  When forming my own opinions on these matters, I always considered universality: how these things are viewed across the boards everywhere.  I also took into account antiquity: how the scriptures have been interpreted over the history of the religion (so if I had a thought that was brand new, I immediately dismissed it as false).  The last of the three things I kept in mind was consensus: how these different ideas have been viewed by the majority of Christians.  Seeing many different perspectives has helped me to, so to speak, gather the three blind men so that I can take the perspectives to get a better idea of the elephant as a whole.  This has lead me through the process of thinking through these issues myself to come to the conclusions which will be presented in this post. 

Was Kant Right?

It is almost natural for the modern Evangelical Christian to immediately reject Kantian thought outright.  The reason for this is the fact that Christianity relies on a set of truths that have no exception.  That is why we call them dogmatic, because they are non-negotiables.  Therefore, if Christianity is right, then Kant must be wrong.  I would like to argue a different perspective based on this almost side-note given about Kant.  “He argued that while some type of reality might exist outside of one’s mind, it is unknowable in itself.”  I am inclined to say that he is absolutely right.  This one statement has certain “Christian” implications without doubt.  In this post I will explore this thought and develop it in detail, and also I will discuss the inherent dangers in being too “Kantian.” (I know I said a post on grace would follow, and it certainly will.  It's my favorite topic! I just know it will probably be long and this was on my mind because of a class lecture)

            All Christian thought has its roots in one thing: revelation.  Kant is absolutely right to believe that humans have no capacity in and of themselves to conceive of an absolute truth because of the issue of relativism.  We cannot know anything apart from ourselves or apart from the created order in which we live.  Our minds cannot conceive of anything that is not a part of the system we reside in.  Here is an example. When I hear Eric Clapton play the guitar, I have the capacity to recognize it as good music.  I have something inside me that hears and appreciates music.  But my dog will listen to one of the greatest guitar players ever to live, and he will appreciate nothing about it.  The dog has no capacity to recognize music or the feelings it conveys.  Similarly, those truths that are above human recognition due to our limitations are unknowable and un-recognizable as truths to humans.

            Now, about this idea of revelation, Christianity finds its authority and source of credibility in a collection of writings that are credited to someone who is not limited to the boundaries of the created order.  Our knowledge and our truths were introduced to us from an outside source, namely the Holy Spirit.  Moses’ law was given to him by God Himself.  Christ was an ambassador from heaven and he made “reality,” to appeal to Kant’s terms, “relative” to all of humanity.  Unfortunately, Kant would probably not like this argument, or rather “apology,” for the Christian faith because of his Descartes-like approach to everything.  His instant response would most likely be the same response every other theory elicits from him: doubt.  Doubt and skepticism, as stated in the introduction, have inherent dangers.  And so now I would like transition into a concise explanation of these dangers.

            Doubt, pessimism, and skepticism unchecked can lead to depression, sadness, and loneliness that is quite possibly responsible for the destruction and imploding of as many souls as sin itself.  It is healthy to question things around us, but if we live by the motto “Doubt everything first,” we will drive ourselves away from truth and live lives of confusion and paranoia.  Doubt and skepticism, if clung to, lead to pessimism and cynicism.  It is also contagious, as proven by my peers here at Indiana Wesleyan University.  Earlier this semester, a student started a Facebook group entitled I Miss God and Scripture in Chapel.  On this group, students posted complaints about the Chapel Staff and the messages being delivered in chapel.  Dr. Lo received a flurry of emails tearing him down spiritually and leaving him doubting his own abilities and his own calling.  Because of one student’s pessimism, two great pastors (Dr. Lo and Rev. Hannon) doubted themselves and were skeptical about their ministry and many students jumped on the bandwagon of pessimism and led to a campus-wide controversy.  Good men are not immune to the parasite of pessimism.  Dr. Jim Lo spends every morning on his knees in prayer for the students of this campus, and his reward was an unwarranted dose of depression.  All this is to say that there are certainly extreme dangers in skepticism and pessimism.  Questioning things is healthy, but letting that skepticism go unchecked can literally kill silently the souls of good people.  Through prayer and support, the chapel staff was restored their confidence but not without long-lasting scars.

            In conclusion, Kant was probably right.  Apart from revelation, we would have no truths by which to live.  Humans have no capacities in and of themselves to interpret truth and distinguish relative truths from absolute truths.  By grace we have those capacities now.  By the testimony of the Spirit and the revelation of God Himself through Christ Jesus, we have absolutes to work with.  But we should still question those things we hear in order to come to a better understanding of those truths.  It is important to make sure that we keep our skepticism in check, though.  It has the capacity to replace optimism and trust with cynicism and pessimism and ruin our hopes and have very negative effects on our relationships and on those people who do not deserve to be the victims of our selfish questions.  This was likely, in my opinion, Kant's demise.

On Sin (a depressing post with good news to follow! [aka a post on grace])

There are a lot of tough questions floating around out there concerning just how much God loves humanity and how He could pass judgment on certain people in certain situations if He is as loving as we say He is.  Many of these questions are rather challenging, and they all revolve around the issue of sin.  Does God send people in remote places who have never heard the gospel into eternal damnation?  What happens to babies when they die before ever being able to come to know Christ?  What happens to mentally handicapped individuals who may never make a decision for Christ?  Is all sin, no matter how big or small, enough to condemn someone?  Why is the unpardonable sin unpardonable?  Is the salvation of Christ simply the salvation from guilt, or is it, rather, the salvation from the dominion and the power of sin?  And if it is the latter, what implications does that carry for our lives?  Can we be condemned for our sins of infirmity (ignorance), those sins that we are clueless that we've committed?  This is just a random post on some of my random thoughts concerning these troubling questions.

First, I want to address this idea that “sin is sin is sin.”  Many people have been raised with this idea that all sin is equal in God’s eyes.  Ironically, this teaching is only about a century old.  The idea that there are levels and degrees of sin is as old as humanity itself.  Different sins in the Old Testament had various punishments according to the severity of the sin.  Paul even treats various sins differently.  In Galatians 5:7-12, Paul seems livid about false doctrine leading others astray, and because of this he offers no thanksgiving in the letter for the Galatian church.  The Corinthians, though, who were wrapped in all kinds of sin including sexual immorality, Paul still offers them a thanksgiving.  And James 3:1, James clearly states, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers and sisters, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”  There’s no way around that.  And does anyone out there really believe that God views murder as seriously as he views shoplifting?  I don’t think anyone can honestly say that they believe that.  And when we step back and look, for those of us who are Wesleyans, we can see that our theology and hamartiology in the Wesleyan denomination states that prevenient grace covers original sin.  So all men are freed from the guilt, though not the taint or bent, of original sin.  If there are no levels and degrees of sin, why would God freely grant everyone the grace to abolish the guilt of original sin, but not freely forgive the guilt of sexual promiscuity?  Wesley breaks the types of sins down into three main sections, and I agree to that point.  But I think we ought to look at a few more particular types of sin according to their severity as I perceive it.

The least severe of all sins, as I see/interpret, is original sin.  As I explained earlier, this is because God freely grants us the grace to be free from the guilt carried by original sin.  The next would be sins of ignorance/infirmity.  Wesley barely considers these sins.  He refers to them as “sins improperly so-called.”  The next would be “overtaking sins.”  These are those which catch us completely off-guard.  Wesley might call these “sins of surprise.”  Galatians 6:1 describes what this might look like.  The fourth on my list of severity (least to greatest) would be what Romans 14:23 describes as faithless acts.  We can sin by doing things while doubting whether or not they are right.  Next would be sins of the mind.  Christ describes these sins when he talks about thinking about another woman sexually and how it is like actually having an affair with the woman.   This next one is a sin that some professors of mine place lower on the range of severity.  I place it relatively high.  That is the sin of omission.  This is described in James 4:17.  It is the good we know that we should do, but choose not to do.  It’s like the notoriously well known story of the woman who was raped while jogging in a very public area.  People stood by and watched and even cheered as a crowd formed around her.  Which is worse?  The one who was blindsided by the event and somewhat disoriented and does nothing because of it?  Or is it worse to stand and watch knowing full-well what is taking place and that you ought to do something to stop it, even if it means risking your own life?  I argue the latter is far worse.  The indifference of good men is an evil unmatched by many other evils. 

Next would be a succession of sinful stages.  The first in these last four sins is the intentional sin that is a decision to break a known law of God.  The sinner still recognizes it as sin and even feels guilt afterwards.  The next would be a rebellious sin.  It is a sin that is committed by one who recognizes it as sin but still sins as an act of defiance against God.  Third is lawlessness.  This is a sinful state where one has hardened their hearts so many times to the grace and love of God that the gift of a moral conscience which is provided by grace is stripped from them.  They no longer recognize their acts as sinful.  They are completely depraved.  And finally, there is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  This is, as I interpret it, a state where one has repeatedly hardened themselves to their own consciences that they no longer just believe that their way of doing life is better than the way the Holy Spirit leads us to act, but they lose their consciences and openly defy the Lord in rebellion and cross the line of verbally denouncing or offending the Holy Spirit and feeling no guilt because of it.

This is a basic outline of my views on sin, but don’t be depressed!  For my next post will be on the topic of grace.  And it is much more uplifting far beyond the level of pessimism that is included in the post on sin.  Sadly, everyone has to address their views on sin somewhere in the development of their theology.  This is my addressing my hamartiology so that I can move on to something much much more optimistic.